Dawes v. The People

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 10/4/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Blank 1983 form provided with order)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM ORREN DAWES,

Case No.: 19cv1921-CAB-BGS
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THE PEOPLE,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On October 2, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

18

U.S.C. §2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner did not pay the filing fee and did not file a

19

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

20

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

21

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in forma

22

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee

23

or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

24

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

25

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of

26

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the claims

27

Petitioner presents. Petitioner claims he is a pretrial detainee in the San Diego County

28

Jail, but he also appears to be challenging an administrative decision rendered at a county
1
19cv1921-CAB-BGS

1

jail facility having to do with Petitioner being involuntarily medicated for the last two

2

years. [Doc. No. 1 at 2.] The allegations in this Petition appear to relate to conditions of

3

confinement rather than any constitutional claims that may affect the duration of his

4

confinement.1

5

Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas review. Challenges to the fact or

6

duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to

7

28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought

8

pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

9

475, 500 (1973), or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal

10

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the “federal analogue” to § 1983. Hartman v.

11

Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, 255 n.2 (2006). Although the Ninth Circuit has stated that

12

“petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution

13

must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court,” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204

14

F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (emphasis added), general conditions of

15

confinement claims are not cognizable under § 2241. See Wright v. Shartle, 699

16

Fed.Appx. 733 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding claims that BOP officials unconstitutionally

17

seized mail and imposed sanctions of loss of phone, visitation, and email correspondence

18

privileges are not cognizable under § 2241 and should instead be brought in a civil rights

19

action). Here, it appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but

20

not the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas

21

claim pursuant to § 2241.

22

/////

23

/////

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Petitioner has two other habeas cases pending in this Court: (1)
Case No. 19cv1920-LAB-AGS (28 U.S.C. §2254) and (2) Case No. 19cv1524-AJB-NLS
(28 U.S.C. §2241).
2
19cv1921-CAB-BGS

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice

3

to being refiled with a new case number pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Clerk of

4

Court shall provide Petitioner with a blank copy of the Court’s form “Complaint under

5

the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2019

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
19cv1921-CAB-BGS